Hacker News Reader

Comment by solresol | Hacker News Reader

Both China and the USA think that any invasion into their territories will inevitably fail because of the strength of their armies and because of the long supply chains that their enemy would need to maintain to hold a position.

Both sides also believe that the other side will inevitably fail because the other side's political system and ideology is so broken.

But because of the first point they both feel confident that the collapse of the other is going to be containable and controllable.

The technological developments (even if morally wrong) are autonomous fighting vehicles that rain mayhem and destruction; and engineered viruses. A failed state can still cause the other side to lose a war, leaving no winners.

View on HN

I suspect, though I hate to say it, that the biggest change autonomous war vehicles will make is that democracies will come to really, really love war; now that it won't cost voters' sons and daughters.

Maybe that means war can become just a national competitive pass-time like video games or e-sports on a much bigger level. It's the carnage and damage to life that is the ugly part of competition or sport or combat - if we can save the lives but still allow nations to challenge themselves in competition with others, so be it. Let's sanction the next version of the Olympics and end the concept of war as it has existed until now.

:fry_cant_tell

You mean hate. The average person on the street doesn't want wars and the inevitable retaliation. Some terrorists are just informal soldiers that felt like they didn't get a fair chance at fighting back. There have also been rumors about terrorists targeting drone pilots.

That is a brilliant summary of the US China strategic situation! I normally think of it from the US point of view-- China can't really invade us, a war would be catastrophic for them economically. You made me realize how symmetrical that thinking is. Yikes!

A us China war would be ecconimc suicide to the wrold ecconomy. To the point that countries we think of as poor come out ahead. (Where would Brazil cast their alliance is an interesting question, as one of the few powerful countries that could make a difference that isn't commited already.

Whoever wins will have lost a lot.

Definitely, to mix metaphors 'when the mighty quarrel the meek inherit'.

Switzerland has grown fat on being neutral in both WWs.

Are there examples of this?

Look at Europe after either world war. They took a long time to rebuild their ecconomy afterwards.

I’m not sure I’d describe any continental European country as having won World War Two, except perhaps Russia. France could be described as a winner in World War One, but their economy grew slowest before both wars, not after.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_France

That there were no winners is the point.

You mean you were thinking US might invade China? Yeah, that was never a possibility.

The US might be able to cut off China from a lot of trade by locking its seas and sinking its ships, though. China is still playing catch-up on maritime supremacy.

Another underrated development is cheap, re-useable launch to LEO. If the US can just park a few thousand telephone-sized depleted uranium rods in orbit for cheap, and strap on a guidance system, that's a pretty big strategic advantage.

You have to supply those autonomous fighting vehicles. Worst case scenario, you use a hypersonic nuke to blow the local base up. You don't even need ICBMs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com